Pages

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Bill Munns: Is This Matilda?

It's not clear how Bill Munns obtained the still images of the "Matilda" video above, but if it's from a real private copy of the "Matilda" footage, this could raise many questions about the authenticity of the Erickson Project footage. According to a recent interview with Matt Moneymaker who privately viewed the footage in Colorado, Erickson had offered to sell the footage for $1,000,000. It's uncertain whether or not anyone had purchased the videos, but recent rumors suggests that Dr. Melba Ketchum or Nat Geo may have purchased the rights. If someone did buy the rights, the purchaser may have also bought themselves a video of a costume -- that's if this short analysis by professional creature effects artist, Bill Munns is correct:

The source the "creature" images never referred to it as "Matilda", but the descriptions I have read about "Matilda" seem to fit what is seen here. To me, it is obvious tihs "creature" is simply a Chewbacca mask with the hair reworked to be a different color and texture. I welcome comments from anyone who thinks otherwise.

Munns on the Bigfoot Forums is now inviting anyone who has seen Erickson's footage to come forward to correct his analysis:

With this posting, I cordially suggest the following:

1. If anyone wishes to publicly acknowledge that this is their footage, I invite them to do so, and if they are correct, I’ll acknowledge it to be true.

2. If anyone feels the video frames show a real creature and not a Chewbacca mask, I welcome their analysis of why we should consider that to be so.

3. If anyone has seen the “Matilda” footage, I invite you to let us know if this is or is not the footage you call “Matilda”, because maybe what I’m looking at isn’t her, and I welcome being corrected if that is so.

4. If my display of this chart causes anyone to feel that they should file some type of civil action against me, please have your lawyer contact me at wmunns@gte.net so we can set an appointment for my receiving the service of papers, and we can discuss the matter on the public record, in a court.

For the record, I will confidently and clearly offer an appraisal of evidence as being something real, if I truly find the evidence leads to that conclusion, and my appraisal of the PGF as being real supports that position. But as much as we must support what we find to be real or valid, we must also reject or discount what we find to be false or fake. Our obligation is to find the truth, and I think it’s time we all knew the truth about this “Matilda” thing. I finally decided it’s time I did my share to get the truth out.

So hopefully, someone who has seen the “Matilda” footage will tell us the truth. Is this her (pictured below), and is she real?

The supposed stills of Matilda's face don't look muuch like the Wookie at all. One is obviously phony; the other is unknown so far. This is a poor comparison.

In light of the supposed April Fools referenced work in the Ketchum paper, the Matilda video and whatever other follow ups can be part of a prank, though five years in the making is a little strange and unlikely.

It's good for believers to continue to be skeptical, especially now, about this coming video.

Very true. Suit or not here, what does it matter when we all including Munns know the PGF is real thus proving the species does exist yet we also know there's always been lots of fakes out there that just goes to further prove Patty real. Matilda on the other hand, who knows or cares until we see the whole thing.

Whatever video those stills are from, they definitely show some kind of Chewbacca mask. I recall people who saw Matilda saying she looked like Chewbacca, too, and the drawing up on the site a while back looked Chewbacca-ish as well and was supposedly meant to be Matilda. Maybe this is not the correct video, but it does raise suspicions.

It looks very much like a Chewie mask by like Don Post or some one. I'm loath to admit that I'm agreeing with an SFX hack like Munns but think he's right. They've recoloured the fur and back combed it to give it more thickness and coloured the mouth too, it looks like fun fur for sure so not even like they tried that hard or they would have used better materials! It looks way too dry to be real fur, it's got no sheen to it like animal fur it just looks like nylon plush fun fur. Yeah the quality is poor compared to the sleeping shag pile we've seen so far but to be fair to Munns it could be a copy of a copy of a copy etc. Also, it could be bs and someone is hoaxing Munns. Who knows?

The teeth are absolutely identical in the top pic you idiot. Your house of cards, church of Bigfoot false religion is crumbling all over. Deal with it you degenerate scumbag schmuck. Even the incisors are spaced and placed back from the front teeth identically in the top pics.

I guess George Lucas just "knew" exactly what a Bigfoot looked like didn't he? That's what you're suggesting when you say idiotic things like the teeth are entirely different. They're a spot on match and furthermore, idiot, you don't think a mask can have the hair, nose and lips reworked rather easily?

as munns said there has been reworking but the obvious parelles are there.

obnviously the hair has been colored as has lips.teeth realighned a little bit. For me its just different coming and extra fur asnd colored differently

if this is 'matilda' then its one big hoax.You have to think it is since theyve never relesed,whats te hold up.if there is only 30secs[if moneymakes is to be believed,why woukld he lie,he wants it tio be true.he hardly shouting this is it guys,we have the evidence is he?]from 5 years of working in their habitition site. a lot of utter nonsensen and theyve taken adavantage of our desire for it to be true

ketchum has ben shown to be know scientost. she should stick to sick bunnies and cats and leave science to experts. A vet is no expert

BUTT LUSTERS ALL MIGHTY !!I'm a troll & on the road but you better hope I don't remember to come back to this shit & tear you guys and or gays a new one for this !!I thought you guys said this Matt Moneymaker HOT SHOT Bigfoot T.V. Queer said this was real? Show us your tits girl-Have you driven a FORD lately?

Once again, more heavy pro-Team Tazer anti-Melba posts from BFE. The backround of the picture of Munns 'Matilda' is heavily pixilated when compared tk the much more clearer backround of the Erickson Footage, in which details on leaves could be seen. Here, you can barely see the things face. Obviously filmed on different camera's, most likely during different decades.

Well, they said that they are a type of people, but this doesn't look like it is a more human face than ape. It's the opposite. So many witnesses say they are struck by how human their facial features are. This reminds me of a gorilla. Not sure what to think.

I've taken some crap for being skeptical of some of the evidence presented on this blog. But I must say, not only is that a sasquatch on the right but in my professional opinion the image on the left is as well. It is mimicking a wookie to avoid detection

To be honest, I've heard from reliable sources that bill munns himself is a sasquatch. In fact Many believe that this blog is a sasquatch mimicking binary code. Holy shit, my refrigerator has a compliant gate... Hold on

For anyone interested, remember the leaks from a person who saw the matilda 'full facial clip' back in 2011 - this was the quote -

"Here is just some of what you are going to see:

A full facial close-up:~ nose similar to ours (but w/ larger nostrils)~ slightly chapped, rosy lips~ pink mouth, blackish tongue~ pointed teeth, like fangs~ deep set eyes that dart around and don’t blink~ her head is round, shaped more like ours than a gorilla’s, but her brow is much more prominent~ she has lots of fine, flowing hair on her head (dark reddish brown) and soft short hair on her face~ when she walks away, she moves just like the female in the Patterson Film"

This certainly does not describe the figure in the above photos. I wonder if Matt M. would comment on this as he has viewed the HD Matilda footage and can at the very least substainiate if we are comparing the same pieces of footage.BTW Is this where Matt got his hooded nose like a dog reference?

And footers should realize that these beings aren't real! If they are, they are not "people" as the habituators (aka habitual liars) contend. Pretending they are humans is just to project their stupid fantasies about their imaginary friends in the woods.

Pwned. All those so called "knowers" are delusional. Saying you are a knower is not going to make this mythical creature real. A bunch of you saying it on the bff is still not gonna make it real. Seek medical help.

Just because anyone posts this garbage? She didnt post this! So why does she lose credibility. If I Post SPONGEBOB pictures then she loses more credibility? People are so gullible on this site. If I want to start a scam I'm going to start here with the sceptics.

When I first read the Ketchum paper, I was shocked and though she had something. So I had given her a chance. I guess I am jumping the gun a little bit by assuming that these are from the Matilda footage. But Ketchum had referenced the footage in her DNA paper, and if it is a hoax then she surely does lose scientific credibility.

Yeah she spent 5 whole years making shite up and looking up big words she didn't understand to writ a 2 hr phony paper and spent the other 4 years and 350 days telling us it'll be out soon you guys know how hard that is to keep a straight face while screwing a group of people and the Nda was so no one could spill the beans that she was about to rob the Bigfoot community

I can't stop laughing I really can't! It's so funny how hard people will hang onto a belief system no matter how ridiculous, insane and mentally unstable it is. I guess if you invest so much time of your life into something you just can't face the fact that you were wrong and it was a waste of time. People's egos just won't allow failure. Ketchum is a perfect example of this.

true about the snow. also the leaf litter in the matilda video looks dry. even if the snow had melted in the area where matilda is sleeping, the leaves would likely still be matted down flat from recent snow melt.

surely someone making a fake video on their budget would do better than chewbacca costume?

wait, is that snow? or just sunlight vs. shadow? 'cause if it's sunlight, then bigfoot is real, but if it's snow, then for sure bigfoot must not be real.....

did it snow on the forest moon of endor? did ewoks have a mid-tarsal break? what about the bi-pedal creature that imprisoned luke in the ice cave in 'empire strikes back'? these questions have to be answered!

I think Shawn Evidence should contact Moneymaker and ask him if that is the Images he saw.If it is well then all the patting on the back they did with Moneymaker will look foolish.I mean I sat and looked at them all nodding their heads when Matt was trashing Melba they were all giddy over it. And we are suppose to believe this is Matilda. A Chewbacca costume.

As a witness who had an up close sighting of 2 sasquatch together i can say with out a doubt that is not a bigfoot, just as a said the same about Melissa H bigfoot photo. When i first heard about the Matilda footage by some one that had seen they also said it looked like a wookie. Well then that tells you its a wookie costume.

Agreed. Bigfoots aren't Wookie or Chewie up close they're humanlike, Lucas however did get inspired for his movie figures because of the rumor that Sasquatch hails from elsewhere. These beings were encountered worldwide many centuries before Hollywood movies.

I remain somewhat open to the Erickson project delivering something of real value but I have been skeptical from the first glance at the sleeping "Matilda" clip simply because I don't think a creature that spends its nights barging through the undergrowth and its days sleeping on leaf litter can afford to have shaggy, tousled hair like a musk ox. It works for a tundra creature, not for a forest creature IMO.

Also, I'm a bit nonplussed at the fact the voice on the video draws our attention to the respiration rate of the shaggy thing, as if getting a video of a napping Bigfoot is a nothing exceptional compared to the amazing discovery of the respiration rate that we've all spent endless hours wondering about(NOT!).

Finally, why end the video without showing more than shag? (Yes, I'm aware that blog-squatch sleuths have found every important anatomical feature but I'm afraid I demand something less open to interpretation.)

It seems to me that Matilda's eyes are much further apart than the Chewy mask. Also, bigfoots don't have fur, they have hair, and there is a big difference. I think these pictures are real. I don't think a costume maker and makeup artist would give the creature black gums and lips...also the nose is an unusual shape, just asymmetrical enough to look real.